Planning Applications PDF 1 MB - Meetings, agendas and minutes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

shutter entrance doors at ground floor level, at the north and south sides of the front elevation, with the front door in the middle. There are no other openings at ground floor level and the building presents a somewhat bleak aspect on to Beavor Lane. The building is not a high quality structure and does not contribute positively to the appearance of the street scene. There is no objection in principle to its demolition, therefore, subject to a scheme to provide a satisfactory replacement development. The redevelopment scheme proposed would help to activate the street frontage and would provide a set-back building line with landscaping to front gardens, which is welcomed. 3.10 The proposed development would consist of a three storey terrace of buildings along the street frontage, with a set-back fourth storey. A traditional design has been chosen for the townhouses, which would incorporate pillared front porches, white rendered facades, slate mansard roofs and a front parapet, incorporating bottle balustrading to alternate properties. The front parapet would align with the height of the adjacent three storey building at no.23 Beavor Lane, and the set back additional storey would not be prominent within the street scene, though it would be visible in longer views from Theresa Road opposite and views of the side elevation from the north. Given the scale and heights of the adjoining buildings, it is considered that the scale and massing, with the set back to the third floor, would be appropriate to the site's context. The elevational design, whilst taking references from dwellings further within the St Peter's Square Conservation Area rather than the immediate context, is considered acceptable given the fact that there is no consistent design or period to the buildings within Beavor Lane. The proposed elegant residential facades, along with the landscaped front gardens and regular front door and window openings, would serve to significantly enhance the appearance of the street scene and would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area. The proposal would thus comply with Policies BE1, DM G1 and DM G7. 3.11 The detailing of the front elevation and elements such as the porticos, windows and balustrades would be critical to the success of the overall design and thus detailed elevational and sectional drawings, as well as the materials, will be reserved by condition (conditions 5 and 6). 3.12 It is noted that a planning application has recently been submitted for the redevelopment at the adjacent site to the north, at 271-281 King Street. Should permission be granted for this current scheme at 11-21 Beavor Lane, the new King Street application will be considered having regard to the impact of the proposed scheme on Beavor Lane and the relationship between the two proposals. IMPACT on NEIGHBOURS 3.13 The northern end of the site is located opposite residential properties on the eastern side of Beavor Lane, and there are flats at Court Mansions to the northeast. The southern half of the site is opposite the playground of St Peter's Primary School. There are commercial buildings immediately adjacent directly to the north and south. Outlook 3.14 The existing building would be replaced with a taller three storey building on the frontage, with a set-back fourth floor. The building line of the proposed office building would follow the existing building line on the upper floors. The proposed residential properties would be set back by 1.5m to provide the front gardens. The resulting built form would therefore be taller by 2.1m on the frontage, with an additional floor set 2.1m
ack from the frontage. In relation to the properties opposite on Beavor Lane, it should be noted that these two storey dwellings already face development that is considerably higher than the eaves of the houses and it is not considered that the additional height of the building's frontage would have a significantly overbearing impact on these properties and would not further reduce outlook. The height of the additional storey would not be readily apparent when viewed from the ground floor of these properties due to its set back and the width of the street. The development would be within a 45 degree line drawn from the boundary with the front gardens of the properties opposite, indicating an acceptable impact in terms of outlook in accordance with Housing Policy 8 of the Planning Guidance SPD. 3.15 The upper floors of the proposed office building would be set back from the rear building line in order to ease the relationship with the rear elevation of Court Mansions behind this development. Amended plans have been received during the course of the application to ensure that no development at ground and first floor levels would extend beyond the existing development at these levels, and in fact part of the ground floor would be set back from the existing rear extent of the ground floor level by 1.8m and the whole of the ground floor would be reduced in height by 1m compared to the existing development. Whilst the height of the building would be raised by 2m from the existing first floor level to accommodate the proposed second floor level, the angle of outlook drawn from the ground floor level of Court Mansions would actually be slightly improved due to the reduction in height of the ground floor level (50% compared to the existing 53%). The proposed third floor level is well set back from the rear boundary (by 10m) and would not impact further on outlook from the rear of Court Mansions. It is not considered then that the development would unreasonably affect outlook or sense of enclosure for the occupiers of these flats. Daylight/Sunlight 3.16 The applicants have carried out a daylight and sunlight assessment which analyses the impact of the proposed development on light conditions at neighbouring properties, based on the British Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines. Windows to residential properties within Beavor Lane and Court Mansions have been assessed. Vertical Sky Component (VSC) has been assessed. The analysis shows that none of the windows closest to the development would experience a noticeable reduction in daylight (defined as a greater than 20% loss of VSC) apart from the rear facing windows to the southernmost first floor flat at Court Mansions. Two of the three windows here would experience a 22% reduction (a kitchen and a bathroom window) and one window would experience a 27% reduction (a bedroom window) in VSC. The flat's living room and another bedroom are to the front of the property and would be unaffected. As the kitchen and bathroom windows do not serve a habitable room, the relatively small noticeable loss of daylight is not considered to significantly affect the amenity of the occupier(s) of the flat. In terms of the bedroom window, the BRE guidelines acknowledge that bedrooms have a lesser need for daylight than other habitable rooms. In this case, a good level of daylight would still be achieved within this room (VSC levels would be reduced from 29.5% to 21.5%). Additionally, information on the Average Daylight Factor (ADF) for the kitchen and bedroom has been submitted. The calculations show that the ADF for the kitchen would be 2.5% (the BRE guidelines state a minimum of 2% should be achieved) and 1.85% for the bedroom (BRE guidelines are that 1% should be achieved). It is therefore considered that this flat would continue to receive adequate daylight as a result of the development and the amenity of all surrounding occupiers would not be unreasonably affected in this regard.
Page 1 and 2:
London Borough Of Hammersmith & Ful
Page 3 and 4:
Applicant: LBHF Mr Neil Kirby 3rd F
Page 5 and 6:
with Borough Wide Strategic Policy
Page 7 and 8:
14) To submit details of a permanen
Page 9 and 10:
minutes walk to Fulham Town Centre.
Page 11 and 12:
• Raised a number of queries rela
Page 13 and 14:
5.12 Although most applications for
Page 15 and 16:
western boundary will be retained a
Page 17 and 18:
Applicant: LBHF Mr Neil Kirby 3rd F
Page 19 and 20:
Consultation Comments: Comments fro
Page 21 and 22:
Applicant: Westfield Shoppingtowns
Page 23 and 24:
Policies DM G1, DM G3 and DM H10 of
Page 25 and 26:
egeneration of the White City area
Page 27 and 28:
1.3 Ariel Way and the White City In
Page 29 and 30:
2.3 The proposed extension will mir
Page 31 and 32:
Sustainability and Energy Access No
Page 33 and 34:
viability. The expansion of Net-a-P
Page 35 and 36:
4.28 The appearance of the scheme h
Page 37 and 38:
combined with the retail and leisur
Page 39 and 40:
Car Parking 4.57 A total of 4,500 c
Page 41 and 42:
that developments which are located
Page 43 and 44:
contribute to the wider Opportunity
Page 45 and 46:
Applicant: The Governing Body Pope
Page 47 and 48:
In order that the Council may be sa
Page 49 and 50:
hours of use; the number and times
Page 51 and 52:
To ensure that the amenity of occup
Page 53 and 54:
Management of Land Contamination (D
Page 55 and 56:
39) The use of the replacement Fati
Page 57 and 58:
6. Access and Crime Prevention: Sub
Page 59 and 60:
part of an informal consultation pr
Page 61 and 62:
ii) The design and impact of the pr
Page 63 and 64:
dioceses to discourage free use of
Page 65 and 66:
structures that make a positive con
Page 67 and 68:
at first floor level, with the majo
Page 69 and 70:
HIGHWAYS and PARKING 3.33 The NPPF
Page 71 and 72: document that should be annually re
Page 73 and 74: levy is set at £0 per square metre
Page 75 and 76: Applicant: Mr S Bennett C/o The Spo
Page 77 and 78: of any proposed storage enclosure,
Page 79 and 80: 17) Prior to commencement of the de
Page 81 and 82: 25) No development shall commence u
Page 83 and 84: 30) The sports pitches/courts hereb
Page 85 and 86: Consultation Comments: Comments fro
Page 87 and 88: 2.3 The Football Association (FA) h
Page 89 and 90: - Large facility surrounded by 3m f
Page 91 and 92: applicants state that small-sided f
Page 93 and 94: 3.12 It is noted that the existing
Page 95 and 96: it is appropriate for the intended
Page 97 and 98: was proposed by the applicant that
Page 99 and 100: collection arrangements, including
Page 101 and 102: 4.0 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION
Page 103 and 104: Applicant: Mr S Bennett C/o The Spo
Page 105 and 106: 4 Wolfe House Australia Road White
Page 107 and 108: Applicant: Fruition Properties C/O
Page 109 and 110: to occupation of the development he
Page 111 and 112: 17) Prior to commencement of the de
Page 113 and 114: Contamination (Defra 2004) or the c
Page 115 and 116: At least one of the proposed spaces
Page 117 and 118: unacceptable noise and disturbance
Page 119 and 120: 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1
Page 121: 3.5 In this instance, the Class B8
Page 125 and 126: additional loss of privacy to Court
Page 127 and 128: which is in accordance with the Cou
Page 129 and 130: on its merits and reach a decision
Page 131 and 132: Applicant: Mr Eric Holroyd Housing
Page 133 and 134: 8) The development shall not commen
Page 135 and 136: To ensure a satisfactory external a
Page 137 and 138: are caused to humans, controlled wa
Page 139 and 140: the council. The approved details s
Page 141 and 142: Neighbour Comments: Letters from: D
Page 143 and 144: 3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The
Page 145 and 146: 3.10 and 3.11; b) affordable housin
Page 147 and 148: of the desirability of sustaining a
Page 149 and 150: 3.33 All units would be built to Li
Page 151 and 152: HIGHWAYS MATTERS Car parking and tr
Page 153 and 154: including the incorporation of sust
Page 155 and 156: 3.70 The scheme has been assessed f
Page 157 and 158: Applicant: Mr Eric Holroyd Housing
show all

Planning Applications PDF 1 MB - Meetings, agendas and minutes

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?